Sociologists have tried to understand why people engage in deviance or crime by developing theories to help explain this behavior. It is important to note that these theories focus primarily on why people engage in crime, why some behaviors are defined as criminal while others aren’t, and how people learn criminal behavior rather than on deviance more broadly. The focus of these theories reflects that society is much more concerned about crime than people who break other kinds of social or cultural norms.

7.3.1 Historical Theories of Deviance

Inspired by Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, early scholars trying to explain crime turned to the concept of evolution to understand differences among humans by claiming physical features were identifying markers of criminals. Several characteristics were said to indicate criminality, including skull shape, size, body type, and facial features. For example, Cesare Lombroso (1911), the father of positivist criminology, claimed that criminals were evolutionary throwbacks. He claimed that criminals can be identified by their abnormal apelike facial and physical features. A visual depiction of these features can be seen below in figure 7.4 .This school of thought is closely associated with the eugenics movement, discussed more in-depth in Chapter 11. These theories were quickly disproven and have received harsh critiques for their blatantly racist foundation.

7.3.1.1 Durkheim and Functionalism

Émile Durkheim believed that deviance is a necessary part of a successful society. One way deviance is functional, he argued, is that it challenges people’s present views (1893). For instance, Colin Kaepernick taking a knee during the national anthem to protest police violence challenged people’s ideas about racial inequality in the United States. Moreover, Durkheim noted, when deviance is punished, it reaffirms currently held social norms, which also contributes to society (1960[1893]). Seeing a student given detention for skipping class reminds other high schoolers that playing hooky isn’t allowed and that they, too, could get detention.

Durkheim’s point regarding the impact of punishing deviance speaks to his arguments about law. Durkheim saw laws as an expression of the collective conscience, which are the beliefs, morals, and attitudes of a society. He discussed the impact of societal size and complexity as contributors to the collective conscience and the development of justice systems and punishments. In large, industrialized societies that were largely bound together by the interdependence of work (the division of labor), punishments for deviance were generally less severe. In smaller, more homogeneous societies, deviance might be punished more severely.

Modern theories have a few significant critiques of Durkheim’s perspective on crime. Sociologists have critiqued Durkheim’s argument that deviance is functional for not being generalizable to all crimes. For instance, it can be hard to argue that murder is functional for society solely because it reaffirms currently held social norms. Moreover, the idea that law is an expression of collective consciousness has also been critiqued. Conflict theorists argue that the bourgeois or elite have significant influence over political and legal institutions, allowing them to pass laws that benefit their interests and avoid harsh punishments when they commit crimes. This challenges the idea that the law reflects what society thinks is just or right.

7.3.1.2 Social Disorganization Theory

Developed by researchers at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and 1930s, social disorganization theory asserts that crime is most likely to occur in communities with weak social ties and the absence of social control.

Some research supports this theory. Even today, crimes like theft or murder are more likely to occur in low-income neighborhoods with many social problems. Still, a critique of this research is that many of these studies rely on official crime rates, much of which reflect police surveillance rather than actual crime rates. For this reason, social disorganization theory does not adequately explain white collar crimes committed by individuals living in wealthy neighborhoods, such as financial fraud or insider trading. Similarly, research from a social disorganization theory often uses circular logic: an area with a high crime rate is assumed to signal a disorganized neighborhood, leading to a high crime rate (Bursik 1988).

7.3.1.3 Cultural Deviance Theory

Cultural deviance theory suggests that conformity to the prevailing cultural norms of lower-class society causes crime. Researchers Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (1942) studied crime patterns in Chicago in the early 1900s. They found that violence and crime were at their worst in the middle of the city and gradually decreased the farther someone traveled from the urban center toward the suburbs. Shaw and McKay noticed that this pattern matched the migration patterns of Chicago citizens. As the urban population expanded, wealthier people moved to the suburbs and left behind the less privileged. Shaw and McKay concluded that socioeconomic status correlated to race and ethnicity resulted in a higher crime rate.

This theory has many similar critiques to social disorganization theory, as they were developed around the same time and strongly emphasize the role of the environment on crime and deviance. One other critique of cultural deviance theory is that while it attributes crime to lower class cultures and values, there is no substantial evidence that these attitudes are limited to people in this class.

7.3.2 Modern Theories of Deviance

In response to the historical theories of deviance, new theories emerged that critiqued or expanded upon them to address shortfalls in their explanations. At the end of this section, figure 7.6 summarizes these key theories.

7.3.2.1 Robert Merton’s Strain Theory: Rethinking Durkheim

Sociologist Robert Merton agreed that deviance is an inherent part of a functioning society, but he expanded on Durkheim’s ideas by developing strain theory, which notes that access to socially acceptable goals plays a part in determining whether a person conforms or deviates. Merton defined five ways people respond to this gap between having a socially accepted goal and having no socially accepted way to pursue it. To understand the five ways people respond, we’ll look at the example of the American Dream: the idea that to be successful, you should own a house, car, and have a happy and functional family.

1. Conformity: Those who conform choose not to deviate. They pursue their goals to the extent that they can through socially accepted means.

   Example: “I may not be able to afford to buy a house in my lifetime, but I have a working car, a loving partner, and a cute dog. I’m content with the lot I’ve been given in life.”

2. Innovation: Those who innovate pursue goals they cannot reach through legitimate means by instead using criminal or deviant means.

   Example: “I grew up in a neighborhood that didn’t have good schools, and I never had an opportunity to get ahead. I want a house, nice car, and to take care of my family, but the only way I can see myself doing that is by continuing to sell cocaine and counterfeit goods.”

3. Ritualism: People who ritualize lower their goals until they can reach them through socially acceptable ways. These members of society focus on conformity rather than attaining a distant dream.

   Example: “I’m never going to be able to afford a nice home and car, but I don’t need those things anyways! I like the apartment I rent, and my cat’s only other form of life I want to be responsible for. Why not just love the things that I do have?”

4. Retreatism: Others retreat and reject society’s goals and means.

   Example:“Why would I even participate in society at all? The deck is stacked against me. I know I’m only 20, but (illegally) hopping on trains and travelling around the country with my friends is where it’s at! ”

5. Rebellion: A handful of people rebel and replace a society’s goals and means with their own. Terrorists or freedom fighters look to overthrow a society’s goals through socially unacceptable means.

   Example: “I’m gonna overthrow the government, that’s what I’m going to do! The system is unjust and it’s not one that’s designed for how humans really are!”

7.3.2.2 William Julius Wilson: Rethinking the Role of Neighborhoods

William Julius Wilson refined ideas in social disorganization theory to explain why people in poverty, particularly those living in black and immigrant communities, are more likely to live in high-crime neighborhoods. Rather than focusing on the role of cultural factors like previous theorists, Wilson (1987) focused on how economic changes have contributed to these groups being more likely to live in high-crime neighborhoods.

Wilson (1997) argued that before the decline of industrial and manufacturing jobs, these groups could be economically successful despite having low levels of education given their access to high paying factory jobs. After manufacturing jobs left these cities, black people and recent immigrants became trapped in low-income high-crime areas with few jobs or low-wage, service sector jobs. According to Wilson’s (1997) theory, crime emerges because policy leads to little economic opportunity and traps disadvantaged groups in poor, high-crime areas where turning to crime is one of the few opportunities for advancement.

7.3.2.3 Karl Marx’s Unequal System Theory

Karl Marx believed that the bourgeoisie centralized their power and influence through government and law. Though Marx spoke little of deviance, his ideas created the foundation for other theorists who study the intersection of deviance and crime with wealth and power. Later Marxists, such as Richard Quinney (1974), expanded upon these ideas. He believed that the bourgeoisie set up laws to maintain their class rankings rather than to reduce crime. Similarly, he argued that the legal system is uninterested in addressing the root causes of crime. Instead, the legal system is preoccupied with controlling the lower class.

7.3.2.4 C. Wright Mills’ Power Elite Theory

Power Elite theory differs from unequal system theory in that it further refines the ideas of unequal system theory. It more clearly specifies which actors influence laws, rather than broadly characterizing the bourgeois as having this power. Still, many similarities exist between the two theories in that they both look at how the groups in power exploit their influence for their benefit at the expense of marginalized populations.

In his book The Power Elite (1956), sociologist C. Wright Mills described the existence of what he dubbed the power elite, a small group of wealthy and influential people at the top of society who hold the power and resources. Wealthy executives, politicians, celebrities, and military leaders often have access to national and international power, and in some cases, their decisions affect everyone in society. Because of this, the rules of society are stacked in favor of a privileged few who manipulate them to stay on top. It is these people who decide what is criminal and what is not, and the effects are often felt most by those who have little power.

7.3.2.5 Michele Foucault: Discipline and Punishment Theory

The panopticon, as seen below in figure 7.5, is a late eighteenth century circular prison designed by philosopher Jeremy Bentham. In the panopticon prison design, guards could continuously monitor prisoners without the prisoners knowing if guards were watching. Since prisoners would not know when guards were watching them, they would constantly surveil their behavior to avoid punishment. French philosopher Michele Foucault (1977) drew parallels between Jeremy Benthan’s panopticon and how modern institutions control the population. He argued that punishment currently occurs through discipline and surveillance by institutions, such as prisons, mental hospitals, schools, and workplaces. These institutions produce compliant citizens without the threat of violence.

Ultimately, Foucault (1977) argued that surveillance created an effect where individuals conformed to society since they never knew if they were being watched. His ideas have gained new importance with the rise of surveillance technologies, which make it harder to engage in deviance without getting caught. Examples of this phenomenon are federal mass surveillance policies and the rise of police departments using technologies to scour social media networks for information about criminal activities. Broadly, Foucault (1977) proposed that social control and punishment are not just formal sanctions, like a prison sentence or ticket, but also something more mundane and built into social institutions.

7.3.2.6 Lemert’s Labeling Theory

Rooted in symbolic interactionism, labeling theory examines the ascribing of a deviant behavior to another person by members of society. What is considered deviant is determined not so much by the behaviors themselves or the people who commit them, but by the reactions of others to these behaviors. As a result, what is considered deviant changes over time and can vary significantly across cultures.

Sociologist Edwin Lemert expanded on the concepts of labeling theory and identified two types of deviance that affect identity formation. Primary deviance is a violation of norms that does not result in any long-term effects on the individual’s self-image or interactions with others. Speeding is a deviant act, but receiving a speeding ticket generally does not make others view you as a bad person, nor does it alter your own self-concept. Individuals who engage in primary deviance still maintain a feeling of belonging in society and are likely to continue to conform to norms in the future.

Sometimes, in more extreme cases, primary deviance can morph into secondary deviance. In secondary deviance a person may begin to take on and fulfill the role of a “deviant” as an act of rebellion against the society that has labeled that individual as such. In many ways, secondary deviance is captured by the phrase, “If you tell a child enough that they’re a bad kid, they’ll eventually believe that they’re a bad kid.” This perspective hits on how negative social labels, especially of juveniles, have the power to create more deviant or criminal behavior.

7.3.2.7 Sykes and Matza’s Techniques of Neutralization

How do people deal with the labels they are given? This was the subject of a study done by Gresham Sykes and David Matza (1957). They studied teenage boys who had been labeled as juvenile delinquents to see how they either embraced or denied these labels. They argued that criminals don’t have vastly different cultural values but rather adopt attitudes to justify criminal behavior at times. Sykes and Matza developed five techniques of neutralization to capture how people justify engaging in criminal acts. Individuals may not necessarily internalize labels if they have developed strategies to reject associating their actions with these labels.

Let’s apply each of these techniques by pretending to be a teenager justifying shoplifting at a major retail chain department store. From this example, we can see how individuals can justify engaging in an act that may be illegal and violates social norms through these kinds of cognitive strategies

1. The Denial of Responsibility: rejecting a label because it’s not their fault

   Example: “I don’t want to steal from this store, but I’ve applied to so many jobs and no one seems to want to hire a teenager these days.”

2. The Denial of Injury: judging a situation based on its effect on others

   Example: “It’s not like anyone is being hurt by me stealing.”

3. The Denial of the Victim: no victim, no crime

   Example: “Who am I hurting anyways? This is a big corporation! They expect some level of theft.”

4. The Condemnation of the Condemners: shifts the narrative away from the deviant behavior to critique by blaming individuals who may hold you accountable or who are impacted

   Example: “This corporation is way more corrupt considering the fact most of their goods come from sweatshops where there is child labor.

5. The Appeal to Higher Loyalty: actions were for a higher or more significant purpose

   Example: “I’m only stealing because I really don’t have enough money to get my sister a nice birthday present and she matters way more to me than any stupid corporation does. I’m a modern day Robin Hood.”

7.3.2.8 Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory

In the early 1900s, sociologist Edwin Sutherland sought to understand how deviant behavior developed among people. Since criminology was a young field, he drew on other aspects of sociology including social interactions and group learning (Laub 2006) and the work of George Herbert Mead, whose ideas are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4. His conclusions established differential association theory, which suggested that individuals learn deviant behavior from those close to them who provide models of and opportunities for deviance.

According to Sutherland, deviance is less a personal choice and more a result of differential socialization processes. He argues that people learn all aspects of criminal behavior through interacting with others and being part of intimate personal groups. Sutherland’s theory captures not only how people learn criminal behavior, but also how people learn motives, rationalizations, and attitudes towards crime. Differential association theory also demystifies crime, conceptualizing it as a behavior just like any other: a radical departure from early theories of crime that viewed criminals as inherently biologically different or all individuals as naturally pleasure seeking, selfish, and prone to crime. In Sutherland’s theory, anyone has the potential to engage in crime if they learn how to commit crime and embrace favorable definitions of crime. This theory also helps explain why not all children who grow up in poverty end up engaging in criminal activity—as historical theories such as cultural deviance theory suggest—because they encounter different situations that shape their definitions towards violating the law.

Figure 7.6. Modern Theories of Deviance and Crime